APS sensors or smaller are the future of the professional market

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by deryck lant, Mar 13, 2005.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    More and more people are beginning to realize this.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dof-rebuttal.shtml

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12606303

    The 35mm format was adopted, largely by accident, 80 years ago, for a
    totally different capture medium.

    These are the concluding words in a technical report in this weeks
    The British Journal of Photography. The article analyses all the optical
    aberrations encountered in digital imaging.

    Next week the 16th of March they begin a 2 weeks review of the D2X.

    Deryck
    deryck lant, Mar 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. deryck  lant

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, deryck lant says...
    > More and more people are beginning to realize this.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dof-rebuttal.shtml
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12606303
    >
    > The 35mm format was adopted, largely by accident, 80 years ago, for a
    > totally different capture medium.
    >
    > These are the concluding words in a technical report in this weeks
    > The British Journal of Photography. The article analyses all the optical
    > aberrations encountered in digital imaging.
    >
    > Next week the 16th of March they begin a 2 weeks review of the D2X.


    Interesting - so the 4/3 standard is not such a bad idea after all...
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
    Alfred Molon, Mar 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. deryck  lant

    Barry Bean Guest

    Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    news::

    > Interesting - so the 4/3 standard is not such a bad idea after all...


    Don't tell Steve.
    Barry Bean, Mar 13, 2005
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    Skip M Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, deryck lant says...
    >> More and more people are beginning to realize this.
    >>
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dof-rebuttal.shtml
    >>
    >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12606303
    >>
    >> The 35mm format was adopted, largely by accident, 80 years ago, for a
    >> totally different capture medium.
    >>
    >> These are the concluding words in a technical report in this weeks
    >> The British Journal of Photography. The article analyses all the optical
    >> aberrations encountered in digital imaging.
    >>
    >> Next week the 16th of March they begin a 2 weeks review of the D2X.

    >
    > Interesting - so the 4/3 standard is not such a bad idea after all...
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/


    And you reached this conclusion how?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    Skip M, Mar 13, 2005
    #4
  5. "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > More and more people are beginning to realize this.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dof-rebuttal.shtml
    >
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12606303
    >
    > The 35mm format was adopted, largely by accident, 80 years ago, for a
    > totally different capture medium.


    This is true. It was just kind of luck that the resolution and pixel size
    make the 36x24mm frame an almost ideal size for professional cameras. The
    semiconductor physics as they relate to noise, and the current resolutions
    of pro cameras of 8-17 megapixels, make the 36x24 area almost ideal. 30x30
    would be good too, but the legacy lenses are all in the 3:2 format, as
    opposed to the 1:1 or 4:3.

    Now if someone figures out how to do a 12-20 megapixel sensor in the APS
    size sensor, with the same noise level as is currently being obtained with a
    36x24 sensor, then APS might have s a future in the professional market. But
    the Nikon D2x is proof that APS size sensors have a long way to go in terms
    of noise.

    Of course the other issue with APS size sensors is the difficulty and
    expense of producing true wide-angle lenses.

    The optimal size sensor for lenses that were produced for 36x24mm film, is
    probably around 32x21 since this would eliminate the vignetting problem,
    while not reducing the pixel size by much. Alternatively, new lenses for
    36x24 digital could easily eliminate the vignetting issue, but at a higher
    cost.

    The bottom line is that the only reason that Nikon bad-mouths the larger
    sensors is because they don't make them, or have access to them.
    Steven M. Scharf, Mar 14, 2005
    #5
  6. "Skip M" <> wrote in message
    news:503Zd.53096$xt.45801@fed1read07...
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message


    > > Interesting - so the 4/3 standard is not such a bad idea after all...
    > > --
    > >
    > > Alfred Molon
    > > ------------------------------
    > > Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > > Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

    >
    > And you reached this conclusion how?


    Uh, it should be obvious. Olympus uses 4:3.
    Steven M. Scharf, Mar 14, 2005
    #6
  7. "Barry Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns96186412834A2eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
    > Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > Interesting - so the 4/3 standard is not such a bad idea after all...

    >
    > Don't tell Steve.


    It's not the idea that's bad, it's the execution. If a sensor manufacturer
    can figure out how to make a low noise sensor in 4:3, and if the camera and
    lens makers come out with a wide variety of 4:3 lenses, then it might work.
    Too bad that no one can figure out how to violate the laws of semiconductor
    physics.
    Steven M. Scharf, Mar 14, 2005
    #7

  8. > And you reached this conclusion how?



    Don't feed the trolls! Notice that his name is very similar to Dreck &
    Slant? Larger sensors on a chip have less noise so the image from a large
    8mp chip will be better than from a small 8mp chip.
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Steven M. Scharf wrote:
    > "Barry Bean" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96186412834A2eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
    >> Alfred Molon <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Interesting - so the 4/3 standard is not such a bad idea after
    >>> all...

    >>
    >> Don't tell Steve.

    >
    > It's not the idea that's bad, it's the execution. If a sensor
    > manufacturer can figure out how to make a low noise sensor in 4:3,
    > and if the camera and lens makers come out with a wide variety of 4:3
    > lenses, then it might work. Too bad that no one can figure out how to
    > violate the laws of semiconductor physics.


    I would be happier with a 4/3 sized sensor (half 35mm in each dimension,
    yes?) than the smaller sensor on today's P&S, but I have been very
    disappointed with the size, weight and cost of the resulting systems so
    far.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Mar 14, 2005
    #9
  10. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    from deryck lant <> contains these words:

    > More and more people are beginning to realize this.


    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dof-rebuttal.shtml


    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12606303


    > The 35mm format was adopted, largely by accident, 80 years ago, for a
    > totally different capture medium.


    > These are the concluding words in a technical report in this weeks
    > The British Journal of Photography. The article analyses all the optical
    > aberrations encountered in digital imaging.


    > Next week the 16th of March they begin a 2 weeks review of the D2X.


    The lengthy BJP technical report says briefly:

    Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a glancing
    angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which light
    emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing. The
    solution to these problems is to have a telecentric design lens.

    To accommodate the telecentric lens design the camera lens mount opening
    has to
    be twice the diagonal of the sensor.

    Full frame diagonal of 35mm film/imager is 43.3mm.

    The Nikon lens flange opening is 45mm.
    The Canon lens flange opening is 48mm.
    The Olympus 4/3 system is 46mm (this is why the Olympus is larger than
    you expect)

    A full frame digital camera at 43.3 frame diagonal would require a
    flange opening
    of 87mm, wider than a 6x7 camera.

    APS sized sensors enable the manufacturer to do their best to make the
    newer WA
    lenses as telecentric as possible.

    Deryck
    deryck lant, Mar 14, 2005
    #10
  11. "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > The lengthy BJP technical report says briefly:
    >
    > Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a

    glancing
    > angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which

    light
    > emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing.

    The
    > solution to these problems is to have a telecentric design lens.


    Does the report concentrate only on the vignetting issue with wide angle
    lenses (which incidentally is also a problem with film)? There are solutions
    to this problem via new optics. There is no true solution to noise, other
    than larger pixels.

    The flange opening does NOT need to be 2x. A slightly smaller than full
    frame sensor, i.e. what's in the 1D Mark II, combined with new optics, will
    solve this problem.to a large extent. As does cropping with a full frame
    sensor, when uses with wide angle lenses.
    Steven M. Scharf, Mar 14, 2005
    #11
  12. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <fSiZd.3704$>
    from "Steven M. Scharf" <> contains these words:


    > "deryck lant" <> wrote in message
    > news:...


    > > The lengthy BJP technical report says briefly:
    > >
    > > Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a

    > glancing
    > > angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which

    > light
    > > emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing.

    > The
    > > solution to these problems is to have a telecentric design lens.


    > Does the report concentrate only on the vignetting issue with wide angle
    > lenses (which incidentally is also a problem with film)? There are solutions
    > to this problem via new optics. There is no true solution to noise, other
    > than larger pixels.


    > The flange opening does NOT need to be 2x. A slightly smaller than full
    > frame sensor, i.e. what's in the 1D Mark II, combined with new optics, will
    > solve this problem.to a large extent. As does cropping with a full frame
    > sensor, when uses with wide angle lenses.


    Anders Uschold in the previous week's BJP tested the EF 17-40 f/4 L USM,
    the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM and the EF
    70-200mm f/4 L
    USM. The camera was the EOS 1Ds Mark II.

    The EF 17-40mm. Showed 60 to 100 percent corner light fall off. Also
    resolution was
    restricted and required the lens to be stopped down. Very high
    distortion at 17mm.

    The EF 24-70mm. Showed over 60 to 100 percent corner light fall off.
    Lens should be
    stopped down one or two stops to improve resolution etc. Optical
    distortion is good.

    The EF 70-200mm f2.8. Showed around 60 percent corner light fall off.
    Resolution not
    wonderful. Optical distortion normal to good.

    The EF 70-200 f/4. Showed around 50 percent corner light falloff.
    Resolution is good
    and optical distortion normal. This is the only lens of the four he
    recommended for use
    on the EOS 1Ds Mark II.

    All the lenses were recommended to stopped down one or two stops.

    Regarding noise. Technology is developing fast. Panasonic have announced
    a sensor
    with two micron elements. Panasonic reduced the conductor path wiring
    from 2.5 to 1.5
    microns, providing an extra 40 percent of the chip space for
    light-gathering. Despite
    doubling the number of photo diodes in a given area, noise should not
    increase.
    This sensor, if scaled up to Four Thirds size, would have 36 million pixels.

    Deryck
    deryck lant, Mar 14, 2005
    #12
  13. deryck  lant

    Guest

    deryck lant blithered:

    > Technology is developing fast.


    Physical reality is faster.

    > Panasonic have announced a sensor with two micron elements.


    Canon 1DMkII: ~8um pixels.
    Uncited Panasonic sensor: 2um pixels.
    Some arithmetic:

    8*8 = 64
    2*2 = 4

    Now even if Panasonic increases the fill-factor to 100%, which sensor
    is better?
    , Mar 14, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <>, says...
    > Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a glancing
    > angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which light
    > emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing. The


    Actually, the solution is microlenses.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 14, 2005
    #14
  15. "deryck lant" <> wrote:
    >
    > The lengthy BJP technical report says briefly:
    >
    > Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a

    glancing
    > angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which

    light
    > emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing.

    The
    > solution to these problems is to have a telecentric design lens.


    If you looked up the meaning of telecentric and understood the definition,
    you'd find yourself to be really embarrassed to have quoted that so
    blithely.

    By the way, wide angle lenses for SLRs are all retrofocus designs, and
    involve ray angles that are much less than those of the 50/1.4 lens.

    The "wide angles don't work on dSLRs" bit is largely FUD.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 14, 2005
    #15
  16. "Brian C. Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, says...
    > > Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a

    glancing
    > > angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which

    light
    > > emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing.

    The
    >
    > Actually, the solution is microlenses.


    Or you could just use retrofocus lenses, where the light is nowhere near a
    steep angle.

    Oops. I forgot. All the SLR wide angle lenses are retrofocus.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 14, 2005
    #16
  17. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <d152d3$jcu$>
    from "David J. Littleboy" <> contains these words:


    > "deryck lant" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > The lengthy BJP technical report says briefly:
    > >
    > > Digital sensors are very unforgiving when the light strikes them at a

    > glancing
    > > angle. The problem is most evident with wide angle lenses, from which

    > light
    > > emerges at a steep angle. This can cause vignetting and colour fringing.

    > The
    > > solution to these problems is to have a telecentric design lens.


    > If you looked up the meaning of telecentric and understood the definition,
    > you'd find yourself to be really embarrassed to have quoted that so
    > blithely.


    ! ! !

    http://www.computeroptics.com/telecentric.html
    http://www.edmundoptics.com/TechSupport/DisplayArticle.cfm?articleid=261

    Deryck
    deryck lant, Mar 15, 2005
    #17
  18. In article <d152pf$jhm$>, says...
    > > Actually, the solution is microlenses.

    >
    > Or you could just use retrofocus lenses, where the light is nowhere near a
    > steep angle.
    >
    > Oops. I forgot. All the SLR wide angle lenses are retrofocus.


    I bow to your superior knowledge of optics, good sir.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 15, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. R2D2

    4/3 vs APS vs 35mm Full Frame Sensors

    R2D2, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    8,105
    John Navas
    Feb 20, 2004
  2. Geshu Iam
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    894
    Roland Karlsson
    Aug 17, 2004
  3. Are 22 megapixel APS-C sensors realistic?

    , Aug 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    1,273
  4. Lars Forslin

    Focal length for APS sensors

    Lars Forslin, Mar 14, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    318
    Lars Forslin
    Mar 15, 2007
  5. =?Utf-8?B?dGhhbmt5b3U=?=

    font of the active title bar appears smaller and smaller automatic

    =?Utf-8?B?dGhhbmt5b3U=?=, Oct 12, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    666
    Tony Sperling
    Oct 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page